Claxton v. Claxton
Luman E. Claxton by guardian v. Frank W. Claxton
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Coolet, C. J.
This is a bill in equity, filed on behalf of a minor, by his general guardian, for partition of lands. The lands are so situated that partition cannot be effected except through a sale, and this is opposed by the other joint owners. A net revenue of about nine per centum upon the value is now realized from the lands. The infant is owner of an undivided one-sixth.
The case has been heard on a stipulation as to the facts, and decree has been made as prayed. Evidently the court has assumed that partition was matter of right, which may be true enough if the facts are such as to warrant it. But when the rights of infants are in question, the facts cannot be established by admissions (Smith v. Smith 13 Mich. 258 ), and judgment must not pass as of course, but the facts must be proved, and the court, on an examination of them, must determine for itself what the interest of the infant demands; and, in a partition case, it is just as important to inquire into the-facts on evidence when the infant is complainant as when he is defendant.
In this case it seems almost certain that the interest of the infant is opposed to a partition if it must be effected by a sale. If therefore the facts which are stipulated were proved, the partition should be denied; and, as we cannot suppose a more favorable showing can be made, the decree will not only be reversed, but the bill dismissed.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.